From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 11, 2003
83 F. App'x 891 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

Submitted December 8, 2003.

This case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-06523-OWW/LJO.

Leroy Eugene Williams, AVSP-Avenal State Prison, Avenal, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sara E. Turner, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (SF), San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Larry Loo, Jeffrey Neubarth, and Romeo Ortiz, doctors at Pleasant Valley State Prison, appeal the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In his amended complaint, Leroy Williams alleges that, after he filed a grievance, these doctors

Page 892.

deliberately withdrew various medical treatments for chronic back and neck problems in retaliation.

We review denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo. See Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir.2003).

If these allegations are true, the defendants purposefully removed previously recommended medical treatments for retaliatory purposes. see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290-91, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Because it is clear that the medical treatments were designed to alleviate and prevent exacerbation of chronic pain and to facilitate Williams' daily activities, retaliatory removal of them would violate Williams clearly established Eighth Amendment rights, see McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 11, 2003
83 F. App'x 891 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Williams v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:Leroy Eugene WILLIAMS, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 11, 2003

Citations

83 F. App'x 891 (9th Cir. 2003)